I am officially out of the holiday season blues. A ski trip to Vermont with my son was the perfect antidote to my depressed mood and the commercialization of Christmas season. Our trip was interesting and highlighted why I love Vermont, skiing, and my son. We skied Sunday in spite of a questionable weather. Sunday morning could lead anyone to question my judgement. We woke up early and drove through rain, heavy rain, to Sugarbush ski resort. When we arrived it was pouring outside. My son thought I was nuts and when we got to the Vermont Adaptive office I was the only student that did not cancel. I was not a popular guy! When my instructor arrived she looked like she just got out of bed and said "I knew you would not cancel". I felt bad as she had to get out of bed on a rotten day. But the skies parted, well sort of, and the conditions were very wet but acceptable. All day the instructor pushed me hard and forced me to ski on intermediate terrain. I like this hard ass approach and for the first day of the season I did well. But the best was yet to come. On Monday the rain turned into snow and over the course of the day almost a foot of snow fell. The conditions improved with each and every run. And an amazing thing happened. Everything I had been told for the last few ski seasons suddenly clicked in my head. I stopped leaning my head into the hill, I was not hammering my right turns, I was looking down hill, I was turning instead of traversing, my riggers were in the correct position, and I was going fast. I am not sure who was happier me or my instructor. But it was my son that made me think and laugh with delight. He skied with us toward the end of the morning and he was full of praise. He said "Dad, that was amazing, it was like legit skiing. You went from the speed of a bike to the international space station". Let me tell you it is hard, almost impossible really, for a parent to impress their seventeen year old son.
We only skied half a day on Monday and drove home afterwards. The drive was very long and gave me a lot of time to think thanks to the fact my son ignored me almost all the way home. While I could rail against the social isolation my son's ipod creates, I valued the quiet drive and was retrospective. My son will be going to college next fall and I have been thinking about my experience as a parent. I thought about the things I have done right, regretted the mistakes I have made, and compared my parenting skills with those of my parents. While measuring up to my parents is impossible, I think I have done a good job raising my son. We are very close, or as close as a parent can be to a teenager bent on independence. Aside from the usual ups and downs all parents and children experience, the custody case I wrote about in my last post had me thinking about the impact my disability has had on my son. This is not the first or last time I have thought about this. My disability is far too visible for others to ignore and we have been born the brunt of intrusive stares and unwanted and rude comments. Like it or not, he is very well aware that being disabled in American society carries great stigma. Thankfully, like me, he forcefully rejects that stigma. And like me when the issue of disability comes up he advocates on behalf of all people with a disability. At school he points out violations of the ADA to teachers and administrators and always frames disability rights as civil rights. I have not pushed or thrust my ideas upon him. I worried about this as the fight for equality is not his fight but mine. Yet he has taken up the mantle of equality for all that few if any teenagers I know have. He has also embraced a radical ideology that I hope will last. The colleges he applied to are all hippie schools with a strong radical bent. These thoughts went through my mind on the drive home from Vermont and it dawned on me that my disability has been a positive influence on his life and my parenting skills. My son is out going, always the first to defend the rights of others, is never discriminatory, and accepting of all others. How did he come to be like this? Surely encountering discrimination head on for much of his life was a major variable. He has seen me needlessly stigmatized by strangers, locked out of routine interaction via social and architectural barriers, and treated as less than human. At a fundamental level he has always known this was wrong and as he has gotten older become more vocal about it. This vocalization has taken many forms. For instance, he is decidedly unhappy that as a teenage he does not share the same rights as an adult. He often asks me why is it okay for him to join the military, die for his country, have sex, father a child but cannot buy a beer or rent a car.
In thinking about being a parent with a disability, in some ways I consider it to be an advantage. My son understands that the world is full of gray areas and answers to seemingly simple questions are not black and white. He understands what the law states and reality are two very different things. He understands in a visceral way that world is not fair, the disenfranchised are most likely to get screwed, and he does like this one bit. He understands there is power in solidarity and thinks people with a disability need a Martin Luther King type leader to rally around. He expects the world to be a just place yet knows this is an ideal we Americans have not yet achieved. He knows the problems I encounter are almost entirely social rather than physical and though he cannot articulate it knows the difference between a medical and social model of disability. Does all this make him unusual? Yes and no. Yes, in that he is far more socially astute than his peers. No, in that he is as self absorbed as any other teenager.
To return to our drive, on the way home I did engage him once about the case of Kaney O'Neill. I briefly described the case and asked him what he thought. In his estimation O'Neill is in deep trouble if she cannot reach an agreement with the child's father. The courts, according to him, will not treat her fairly. There is no doubt in his mind that the "best interests of the child"
will be used against her. I asked him why he felt so strongly about this. In reply he said "Dad, every time you took me to the ER for stitches or an official place where no one knew you they looked at you as though you were incompetent or a Martian. Do you really think a judge is going to look past a wheelchair and see the person using it?" My son's statement is as sad as it is true. I just wish others saw it in the same way. For instance, in a recent story about O'Neill published by ABC News Arthur Caplan, a respected bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania stated "From a bioethics point of view, this case is not particularly compelling. To me, it's a straightforward example of disability rights where the law is completely on the side of disabled persons". Caplan is correct, the law is on the side people with disabilities. But those laws are interpreted and ruled on by humans with little or no understanding of disability rights. Thus I share my son's deep pessimism that O'Neill will be perceived to be equal to the child's father simply because he will be walking into the court room.
From my great distance and with no direct knowledge of the situation I have no idea who should get custody of the O'Neill's child. What I do know is that the mother, father, and child will all lose if they step into a court of law. Having been through a divorce and separation that is the one lasting lesson I learned. I also know, as my son does, that the mother's disability is not relevant. But life is not fair nor are the courts when a case involves a person with a disability. If you question this conclusion just ask my son what he thinks.
Weary End of the Year Thoughts
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
I am weary and sad. No doubt this is tied to the holiday season and inevitable end of year retrospection. Another variable is the supposed good cheer one and all are feeling. For me, a person with a disability, strangers seem to suddenly want to help me or are quick with what they think are positive or cheerful comments. In the past week I have "complimented" multiple times about how I get in and out of my car. For instance I have been told it is "amazing the way you get in and out and even drive yourself". Or yesterday when grocery shopping a woman told me I was "an inspiration for the way I push my grocery cart around". I would like to think these ignorant comments are well intended but their increased frequency during the holiday season just pisses me off. I consider this a form of social harassment--a way of reinforcing the superiority of those that are bipedal. Such inane comments all share one thing in common: the assumption that people with a disability are inferior. The focus is never on what can be done but rather on what cannot be done. Disability is a personal and collective tragedy that prevents a person from doing the ordinary. This line of reasoning makes me furious.
I use a wheelchair and cannot walk. I don't think using a wheelchair is a big deal or significant loss in terms of mobility. My means of navigating the world and the social environment is different from the norm. Few people that navigate the world on two feet think this way. Using a wheelchair carries stigma. This was the case thirty years ago when I started using a wheelchair and not much has changed. The worst part of the stigma associated with my use of a wheelchair is the assumption my life is inferior. The routine is not possible and when I have the audacity to be ordinary I am lauded as amazing. Something amazing is going on but it has nothing to do with getting my crippled ass in and out of my car or pushing a shopping cart around the grocery store. What amazes me is how ignorant people are. Surely in the last thirty years society, that is me, you and your neighbors, should have concluded using a wheelchair is a different means of getting around the world we live in. Using a wheelchair should signify nothing socially. But this idea is a pipe dream. I don't see the stigma attached to using a wheelchair changing in my lifetime. For the longest time I thought my presence as well as the presence of others that use a wheelchair was enough to generate change. This was wishful thinking and wrong in retrospect. Now I think all people with a disability that yearn for equality must not simply be present but need to assert themselves. This is easier said than done. I am polite to a fault and do not like confrontations. And during the holiday season no one likes to be Scrooge like (though my son thinks I am perfect for this part). Combine this with the false belief that people with a disability are bitter or angry because they have a disability and I often find myself in a Catch 22 situation. How does one respond when a mother of two thinks I am amazing because I can push a shopping cart? Getting angry in the face of such ignorance is not helpful. An explanation that such a comment is inappropriate is too time consuming. So how do I cope? I scowl a lot and do my best to appear unapproachable. I avoid eye contact with adults, I am not open with strangers, I never answer direct questions, and am wary at all times. While this may protect me from some of the worst social abuses it does not exactly help my social life or foster change.
I wish I had the solution that would foster revolutionary change for all people with a disability. The bias we people with a disability encounter is overwhelming. It is the one underlying theme of my life as an adult. That is the assumption that I am less of a human being, that I have less rights, lesser expectations, hopes, dreams, and ambitions. I have consistently rejected this but it has not been easy. So during this holiday season I mourn for a simpler time that I am not sure ever existed. I wish I was shopping for the coolest Lego set for my son or making a ginger bread house with him. I wish he was once again sitting on my lap as a toddler telling me "Go, Daddy Go". These memories are a mix of fantasy and reality. The reality is my son was the cutest little boy and in spite of inherent human flaws we all posses a fine young man with a bright future. There is another reality though--having my ability to parent repeatedly questioned by strangers, doctors, teachers, and all those that saw a wheelchair and not the human being sitting in it. These unpleasant thoughts have been on my mind as I have been following via newspaper articles the experiences of Kaney O'Neill. O'Neill is a 31 year old mother of one and quadriplegic. Her child's father, David Trais, a self-employed Chicago attorney, has sued Ms. O'Neill for full custody of their son alleging that she is "not a fit and proper person" to care for their son. In Trais 'opinion her disability "greatly limits her ability to care for the minor or even wake up if the minor is distressed". Since a landmark 1979 California Supreme Court Decision a parent's disability cannot be used against them in custody hearings. The court ruled that "the essence of parenting is not to be found in the harried rounds of daily car pooling but rather in the ethical, emotional, and intellectual guidance the parents give the child throughout his formative years." Amen! But in the legal system the idea that a parent with a disability is equal to a parent without a disability is pure fiction. Bigotry abounds against parents with a disability and the amorphous belief that "the best interests of the child" always comes first. Those best interests translates into parents without a disability getting custody. This sentiment was perfectly expressed by Howard LeVine, a lawyer with 40 years of divorce and custody experience. LeVine was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as stating that Trais' concerns are well founded. LeVine stated "Certainly I sympathize with the mom but assuming both parties are equal in other respects isn't the child obviously better off with the father? What's the effect on the child, feeling sorry for the mother and becoming the parent?" While I find LeVine's comments offensive I do not think they are unusual. The focus is on what a person, in this case a mother with a disability, cannot do. I wish O'Neill well in her custody battle and can answer one of Mr. LeVine's questions: "What's the effect of on the child?" If my son is any indication, he has learned much from me as a parent with a disability. He understands the impact bigotry can have on a person from experience. He understands civil rights extend beyond the color of one's skin and include disability rights. He understands injustice and the difference between what the law states and reality. He has a nuanced appreciation for the struggle of all minority groups. He does not think of me as being different. I am simply his father, a man that love him very much. So, despite my grumpiness I know I am a lucky man. I live in a nice home, drive good car, have adequate employment, my son attends a good school and is looking forward to going to college. I have no right to be so grumpy and yet remain extremely sad.
I use a wheelchair and cannot walk. I don't think using a wheelchair is a big deal or significant loss in terms of mobility. My means of navigating the world and the social environment is different from the norm. Few people that navigate the world on two feet think this way. Using a wheelchair carries stigma. This was the case thirty years ago when I started using a wheelchair and not much has changed. The worst part of the stigma associated with my use of a wheelchair is the assumption my life is inferior. The routine is not possible and when I have the audacity to be ordinary I am lauded as amazing. Something amazing is going on but it has nothing to do with getting my crippled ass in and out of my car or pushing a shopping cart around the grocery store. What amazes me is how ignorant people are. Surely in the last thirty years society, that is me, you and your neighbors, should have concluded using a wheelchair is a different means of getting around the world we live in. Using a wheelchair should signify nothing socially. But this idea is a pipe dream. I don't see the stigma attached to using a wheelchair changing in my lifetime. For the longest time I thought my presence as well as the presence of others that use a wheelchair was enough to generate change. This was wishful thinking and wrong in retrospect. Now I think all people with a disability that yearn for equality must not simply be present but need to assert themselves. This is easier said than done. I am polite to a fault and do not like confrontations. And during the holiday season no one likes to be Scrooge like (though my son thinks I am perfect for this part). Combine this with the false belief that people with a disability are bitter or angry because they have a disability and I often find myself in a Catch 22 situation. How does one respond when a mother of two thinks I am amazing because I can push a shopping cart? Getting angry in the face of such ignorance is not helpful. An explanation that such a comment is inappropriate is too time consuming. So how do I cope? I scowl a lot and do my best to appear unapproachable. I avoid eye contact with adults, I am not open with strangers, I never answer direct questions, and am wary at all times. While this may protect me from some of the worst social abuses it does not exactly help my social life or foster change.
I wish I had the solution that would foster revolutionary change for all people with a disability. The bias we people with a disability encounter is overwhelming. It is the one underlying theme of my life as an adult. That is the assumption that I am less of a human being, that I have less rights, lesser expectations, hopes, dreams, and ambitions. I have consistently rejected this but it has not been easy. So during this holiday season I mourn for a simpler time that I am not sure ever existed. I wish I was shopping for the coolest Lego set for my son or making a ginger bread house with him. I wish he was once again sitting on my lap as a toddler telling me "Go, Daddy Go". These memories are a mix of fantasy and reality. The reality is my son was the cutest little boy and in spite of inherent human flaws we all posses a fine young man with a bright future. There is another reality though--having my ability to parent repeatedly questioned by strangers, doctors, teachers, and all those that saw a wheelchair and not the human being sitting in it. These unpleasant thoughts have been on my mind as I have been following via newspaper articles the experiences of Kaney O'Neill. O'Neill is a 31 year old mother of one and quadriplegic. Her child's father, David Trais, a self-employed Chicago attorney, has sued Ms. O'Neill for full custody of their son alleging that she is "not a fit and proper person" to care for their son. In Trais 'opinion her disability "greatly limits her ability to care for the minor or even wake up if the minor is distressed". Since a landmark 1979 California Supreme Court Decision a parent's disability cannot be used against them in custody hearings. The court ruled that "the essence of parenting is not to be found in the harried rounds of daily car pooling but rather in the ethical, emotional, and intellectual guidance the parents give the child throughout his formative years." Amen! But in the legal system the idea that a parent with a disability is equal to a parent without a disability is pure fiction. Bigotry abounds against parents with a disability and the amorphous belief that "the best interests of the child" always comes first. Those best interests translates into parents without a disability getting custody. This sentiment was perfectly expressed by Howard LeVine, a lawyer with 40 years of divorce and custody experience. LeVine was quoted in the Chicago Tribune as stating that Trais' concerns are well founded. LeVine stated "Certainly I sympathize with the mom but assuming both parties are equal in other respects isn't the child obviously better off with the father? What's the effect on the child, feeling sorry for the mother and becoming the parent?" While I find LeVine's comments offensive I do not think they are unusual. The focus is on what a person, in this case a mother with a disability, cannot do. I wish O'Neill well in her custody battle and can answer one of Mr. LeVine's questions: "What's the effect of on the child?" If my son is any indication, he has learned much from me as a parent with a disability. He understands the impact bigotry can have on a person from experience. He understands civil rights extend beyond the color of one's skin and include disability rights. He understands injustice and the difference between what the law states and reality. He has a nuanced appreciation for the struggle of all minority groups. He does not think of me as being different. I am simply his father, a man that love him very much. So, despite my grumpiness I know I am a lucky man. I live in a nice home, drive good car, have adequate employment, my son attends a good school and is looking forward to going to college. I have no right to be so grumpy and yet remain extremely sad.
Technological and Social Change
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Technology has always fascinated me. I vividly recall being a sick child in 1969, the year the Mets won the World Series with my favorite player, Tom Seaver, leading the team. What I remember the most was listening to the games on the radio. Unlike today, in 1969 the World Series was played during the day. Kids had access to the latest information and scores. I have particularly vivid memories of the 1969 World Series because of technology. My father knew I loved the Mets, had memorized the stats of most players, and had a baseball card for each man on the team. He wanted me to feel connected to the games and I suspect distract me from my illness and the pain I was experiencing. To this end, he bought one of the first small transistor radios on the market. The radio could fit in the palm of my hand, truly a technological marvel, and within a day my hospital bed became the command center for the latest information on the World Series. Doctors, nurses, and workers from all over the hospital would stop by the ward and ask "what's the score". Some would ask to look at the radio and shake their head in wonder. I felt like the most important person in the world.
Not much has changed since 1969. We Americans love technology. We have embraced technology with gusto. When a problem arises we invariably seek a technological solution. Doubt me and simply observe college students or teenagers who cannot function without a cell phone, internet access, and text messages. This is not a critique but basic observation about how they access information and problem solve. While technology is wonderful and enhances our lives in a myriad of ways anthropologists have long observed that technological change takes places before social change. For example, the introduction of the washing machine reduced the labor for many women in the household but did not create gender equality. Gender equality has improved greatly but we are still far from true equality. The same can be said for people with disabilities--we are far from equal but have been empowered by technological advances. For example, I have witnessed a veritable revolution in wheelchair technology that has been driven by the bicycle industry. Carbon fiber wheelchair frames and quick release wheels are routinely used. Adaptive sports gear abounds and my life has been improved as a result. But I firmly believe our struggle for equality is not an issue of technology but one of social bigotry. Thus I have mixed feeling when I finish articles like the one I just read in Scientific American about the robotics involved in creating a "smart wheelchair". John Spletzer, an associate professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Lehigh University is building on his work in with autonomous vehicles to create "smart wheelchairs". The wheelchairs Spletzer is designing use artificial intelligence, lasers, sensors, and mapping software technology to operate and navigate power wheelchairs. The prototype wheelchair can navigate sidewalks, parking lots and outdoor areas. The last accomplishment, outdoor areas, impressed me as did a quote from Spletzer: "My work aims to push the envelope in wheelchair autonomy. It will not be limited to structured indoor environments. Instead, it investigates the much more difficult problem of autonomous operations in unstructured environments outdoors".
I have no doubt Spletzer's so called "smart wheelchair" is on the cutting edge of technology. I wish him well but hope he is attuned to the fact most people with a disability do not have significant financial resources. And if I have learned one thing about contemporary technology it is expensive--very expensive. Time will tell if Spletzer's invention will be commercially viable and this is where society fits in the picture. There is a demand, need, for such a technologically advanced wheelchair. In fact millions of people could benefit. But do we as a society value the people that could utilize this technology. In a word, no. Previous examples of technologically advanced wheelchairs have all failed. They did not fail because they were not needed but rather insurance companies balked at the price and refused to purchase them. Why empower a person with a disability with a wheelchair that costs thousands of dollars when one that costs a few hundred dollars will suffice. This is a social problem that must be addressed and cannot be solved by technology. Spletzer's overall goal, "unprecedented levels of autonomy", is admirable but the barriers to equality are deeply rooted in the way society perceives people with a disability. Society may love technology but is socially selective in how it is utilized. Sadly, everything I have experienced in the last thirty years leads me to conclude society does not think we people with a disability are worth the expenditure. Expensive technology is better of being utilized elsewhere. This may be wrong and may over time change but is the world I live in.
Not much has changed since 1969. We Americans love technology. We have embraced technology with gusto. When a problem arises we invariably seek a technological solution. Doubt me and simply observe college students or teenagers who cannot function without a cell phone, internet access, and text messages. This is not a critique but basic observation about how they access information and problem solve. While technology is wonderful and enhances our lives in a myriad of ways anthropologists have long observed that technological change takes places before social change. For example, the introduction of the washing machine reduced the labor for many women in the household but did not create gender equality. Gender equality has improved greatly but we are still far from true equality. The same can be said for people with disabilities--we are far from equal but have been empowered by technological advances. For example, I have witnessed a veritable revolution in wheelchair technology that has been driven by the bicycle industry. Carbon fiber wheelchair frames and quick release wheels are routinely used. Adaptive sports gear abounds and my life has been improved as a result. But I firmly believe our struggle for equality is not an issue of technology but one of social bigotry. Thus I have mixed feeling when I finish articles like the one I just read in Scientific American about the robotics involved in creating a "smart wheelchair". John Spletzer, an associate professor in the Computer Science and Engineering Department at Lehigh University is building on his work in with autonomous vehicles to create "smart wheelchairs". The wheelchairs Spletzer is designing use artificial intelligence, lasers, sensors, and mapping software technology to operate and navigate power wheelchairs. The prototype wheelchair can navigate sidewalks, parking lots and outdoor areas. The last accomplishment, outdoor areas, impressed me as did a quote from Spletzer: "My work aims to push the envelope in wheelchair autonomy. It will not be limited to structured indoor environments. Instead, it investigates the much more difficult problem of autonomous operations in unstructured environments outdoors".
I have no doubt Spletzer's so called "smart wheelchair" is on the cutting edge of technology. I wish him well but hope he is attuned to the fact most people with a disability do not have significant financial resources. And if I have learned one thing about contemporary technology it is expensive--very expensive. Time will tell if Spletzer's invention will be commercially viable and this is where society fits in the picture. There is a demand, need, for such a technologically advanced wheelchair. In fact millions of people could benefit. But do we as a society value the people that could utilize this technology. In a word, no. Previous examples of technologically advanced wheelchairs have all failed. They did not fail because they were not needed but rather insurance companies balked at the price and refused to purchase them. Why empower a person with a disability with a wheelchair that costs thousands of dollars when one that costs a few hundred dollars will suffice. This is a social problem that must be addressed and cannot be solved by technology. Spletzer's overall goal, "unprecedented levels of autonomy", is admirable but the barriers to equality are deeply rooted in the way society perceives people with a disability. Society may love technology but is socially selective in how it is utilized. Sadly, everything I have experienced in the last thirty years leads me to conclude society does not think we people with a disability are worth the expenditure. Expensive technology is better of being utilized elsewhere. This may be wrong and may over time change but is the world I live in.
Sustainability Initiatives by Retail Firms
Monday, December 14, 2009
Over the last couple of years, retail firms have steadily sought to reduce their carbon impact on the environment. Initiatives have come in the form of energy efficient buildings, reducing the amount of packaging materials used in the products, introducing bio-degradable carry bags, reducing the number of carbon miles of its products (partly by stocking products that are manufactured or produced in that particular region).
Retail firms and especially the big firms like Wal-Mart, Tesco have the power to influence its suppliers and thereby bring about an permanent change in the way our environment is affected.
According to a recent survey by Management Consulting Firm Capgemini, 87% of global customers stated that a sustainability factor will have a major influence in their buying behaviour. And this percentage is only going to increase with sustainable products costing as much as their non-sustainable counterparts.
No wonder that Tesco has come out with a supermarket that it claims to be "Zero Carbon Supermarket"
Sex, Drugs, Rock & Roll and Hollywood
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Yesterday when I finished writing my post about Hollywood prejudice against actors with a disability I came across news that a new film about Ian Dury is being released in January 2010. Titled Sex, Drugs & Rock & Roll, the film chronicles Dury's life and rise to stardom. Dury was a key figure in Punk Rock, lead singer of the Blockheads and an influential song writer. Avid readers of this blog will recall I wrote about Punk Rock last June and the impact it had on me when I was first disabled. By far the punk song I liked the most aside from the Sex Pistols God Save the Queen was Spasticus Autisticus. The refrain in Spasticus Auticus empowered me to change--to become assertive in a way I was not sure was possible. Now many years later I am hopeful the film will delve into this important song written for the International Year of the Disabled circa 1981 and Dury's experience with polio as a seven year old boy. Dury wore a heavy leg brace (a caliper as the British call it) and used a walking stick. Dury also went to a "special school", Challey School for Crippled Children. How he emerged from his experience with polio and a segregated school system in Britain amazes me. I am amazed not because he adapted to polio but rather overcome what must have been overwhelming social bias and stigma.
I eagerly await the release of the film and look forward to how the filmmakers deal with the impact polio had on Dury physically and socially. I am particularly hopeful because the film about Dury is not being produced by an American Hollywood producer or studio. Another major variable is that the young Dury will be portrayed by Wesley Nelson, a 13 year old actor who has cerebral palsy. Imagine that--a young actor with extensive experience on television playing a character with a disability. Based in Cardiff, Nelson has stated he will draw on his own experience with disability to understand a man he never met and will portray. Nelson noted that "I read a lot about Challey, but a certain degree has to come from you and your emotion. You have to understand his surroundings which and I drew on my experience with cerebral palsy and partly used that to understand him, which you could say was handy". Handy indeed! Here is an actor with a disability getting a chance to break into films and perceives his experience with a disability as a positive. If a 13 year actor can grasp this why can't movie producers get it? Well it appears as if the producer of the film, Damian Jones, drew on the expertise at 104 Films, a production company with an international reputation in the field of disability cinema and strong connections to the UK Film Council. Not content with just an actor with a disability, during production the filmmakers also operated a disability training program also connected to 104 Film. Surely a more nuanced understanding of disability as portrayed in the film and among the production company are a likely result.
When I read about Sex & Drugs & Rick & Roll I thought about how the acclaimed American television show Glee missed a golden opportunity to portray disability in a complex way. Instead, Glee claimed no qualified actor in America could be found to play the part. The result was a poor at best episode that relied on well-worn ideas and featured a bad scene of people dancing that used wheelchairs. Perhaps the result would have been the same if an actor with a disability was hired--we are talking about American television afterall. But somehow I doubt the episode would have been quite as bad as it was. There is something to be said for having direct experience with disability. And the fact is there are times when having a disability is an advantage. Few if any people without a disability realize this. And I am certain no producer in Hollywood thinks this way. Perhaps if we had more groups like 104 Film more actors with disabilities would be hired. I guess I am still dreaming and hopeful a world where I am considered equal will exist.
I eagerly await the release of the film and look forward to how the filmmakers deal with the impact polio had on Dury physically and socially. I am particularly hopeful because the film about Dury is not being produced by an American Hollywood producer or studio. Another major variable is that the young Dury will be portrayed by Wesley Nelson, a 13 year old actor who has cerebral palsy. Imagine that--a young actor with extensive experience on television playing a character with a disability. Based in Cardiff, Nelson has stated he will draw on his own experience with disability to understand a man he never met and will portray. Nelson noted that "I read a lot about Challey, but a certain degree has to come from you and your emotion. You have to understand his surroundings which and I drew on my experience with cerebral palsy and partly used that to understand him, which you could say was handy". Handy indeed! Here is an actor with a disability getting a chance to break into films and perceives his experience with a disability as a positive. If a 13 year actor can grasp this why can't movie producers get it? Well it appears as if the producer of the film, Damian Jones, drew on the expertise at 104 Films, a production company with an international reputation in the field of disability cinema and strong connections to the UK Film Council. Not content with just an actor with a disability, during production the filmmakers also operated a disability training program also connected to 104 Film. Surely a more nuanced understanding of disability as portrayed in the film and among the production company are a likely result.
When I read about Sex & Drugs & Rick & Roll I thought about how the acclaimed American television show Glee missed a golden opportunity to portray disability in a complex way. Instead, Glee claimed no qualified actor in America could be found to play the part. The result was a poor at best episode that relied on well-worn ideas and featured a bad scene of people dancing that used wheelchairs. Perhaps the result would have been the same if an actor with a disability was hired--we are talking about American television afterall. But somehow I doubt the episode would have been quite as bad as it was. There is something to be said for having direct experience with disability. And the fact is there are times when having a disability is an advantage. Few if any people without a disability realize this. And I am certain no producer in Hollywood thinks this way. Perhaps if we had more groups like 104 Film more actors with disabilities would be hired. I guess I am still dreaming and hopeful a world where I am considered equal will exist.
Hollywood Prejudice
Saturday, December 12, 2009
I have been relatively inactive recently. I am caught up with the usual end of semester madness and demands of work and family. While I may be silent, I have been following the news as it pertains to disability. At the forefront this month are multiple stories related to the role or lackthereof for disabled characters on television, film, and theatre. Wheelie Catholic and Wheelchair Dancer have, for good reason, blasted the television program Glee. Disabled actors have protested the use of Abigal Breslin in a production about the life of Helen Keller--they believe a blind actress should have been awarded the part. Predictably, mainstream news outlets belittle critiques leveled by actors with disabilities. Like bigoted Hollywood producers that do not caste actors with a disability to portray a character with a disability, news reports state "We tried, there are just not any qualified disabled actors. No person with a disability was good enough to play the part". Yeah, right! If this were true why do so many actors with a disability bitterly complain about rampant and persistent discrimination. Many contend, what's the big deal. Well, it is a very big deal to me and it involves far more than an ideological viewpoint. As the title of Nothing About Us Without implies and graphically demonstrates when it come to disability issues people with a disability must be present for effective change to take place. Hollywood is quite content to lock out actors with a disability. They have done this in the past and they are doing so today. I cannot believe there is a lack of qualified actors with a disability. I believe overt prejudice exists as does subtle bias. I know this in part because I am in a profession, academia, that is hostile to the presence of people with a disability and disability rights. My isolation is to a degree extreme. I have always worked in isolation, that is as the only person with a disability on campus. Aside from a lack of support for my civil rights, the not so subtle message is that people on campus have no place being a professor. It is not a role I or any other paralyzed person is expected to fill.
My views are harsh. Certainly more harsh than Leonard David who recently wrote a thought provoking article, "Let Actors with Disabilities Play Characters with Disabilities", on December 7 in the Huffington Post. I greatly admire Davis' scholarship and activism but he is far too generous in my opinion when it comes to Hollywood. Of course I do not in any way want a person with a disability to get a part simply because he or she has a disability. But as Davis noted "the current reality is that non-disabled actors get to play whatever roles they want whereas disabled actors don't. So there is not a level playing field. One group has all the advantages while the other is discriminated against. The three major entertainment unions agree. It's now been a year since they launched a campaign to create equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities." And what has happened in the last year? Nothing. Actors with disabilities are still discriminated against and actors without a disability play the parts of people who are blind, deaf, paralyzed etc. The result is that we people with a disability remain unemployed in great numbers and socially invisible. We as a society can do better, much better. Don't tell me there are not qualified people looking for work in multiple professions, acting included. Yet within popular culture and the media, especially television and film, characters with disability are a rarity or, worse yet, reduced to a stereotype. This infuriates and worries me. Where are the role models for people with a disability? Who are children with a disability expected to emulate? What message is sent when we have a person without a disability caste in a role as person with a disability? To me it is truly strange when I see a person use a wheelchair in a given role and then see that same individual walk around. The larger message sent is clear: people with a disability, in this case anyone that uses a wheelchair, is not competent. This is a lie, a gross falsehood many accept. It leads to overt prejudice against people with a disability. It takes place in Hollywood, on college campuses, and in the business world. Prejudice accounts for why people with a disability are at such a gross disadvantage economically and socially. The issue is not a given physical deficit but social stigma.
Needles to say no one wakes up and thinks, as Mary Johnson demonstrated in her book Make Them Go Away, that I am going to be biased against a person with a disability. But just because this is not an overt thought in people's mind does not mean rampant prejudice does not exist. The prejudice people with a disability encounter is different from let's say racial bigotry that is clearly understood and frowned upon (all children are taught this in school). It is equally troubling that disability based prejudice is not widely acknowledged. Sure we have the ADA but few people equate it with civil rights legislation. We people with a disability are out of sight and out of mind. And frankly we could use more than a little help from Hollywood because they have a vast influence on millions of people. Just imagine what would happen if somehow disability became cool. Hollywood has the power to make this happen but chooses instead to lock out actors with a disability and more generally a disability rights viewpoint. I for one would like to be perceived as cool once in my life. Ah, dreams die hard even in my household.
My views are harsh. Certainly more harsh than Leonard David who recently wrote a thought provoking article, "Let Actors with Disabilities Play Characters with Disabilities", on December 7 in the Huffington Post. I greatly admire Davis' scholarship and activism but he is far too generous in my opinion when it comes to Hollywood. Of course I do not in any way want a person with a disability to get a part simply because he or she has a disability. But as Davis noted "the current reality is that non-disabled actors get to play whatever roles they want whereas disabled actors don't. So there is not a level playing field. One group has all the advantages while the other is discriminated against. The three major entertainment unions agree. It's now been a year since they launched a campaign to create equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities." And what has happened in the last year? Nothing. Actors with disabilities are still discriminated against and actors without a disability play the parts of people who are blind, deaf, paralyzed etc. The result is that we people with a disability remain unemployed in great numbers and socially invisible. We as a society can do better, much better. Don't tell me there are not qualified people looking for work in multiple professions, acting included. Yet within popular culture and the media, especially television and film, characters with disability are a rarity or, worse yet, reduced to a stereotype. This infuriates and worries me. Where are the role models for people with a disability? Who are children with a disability expected to emulate? What message is sent when we have a person without a disability caste in a role as person with a disability? To me it is truly strange when I see a person use a wheelchair in a given role and then see that same individual walk around. The larger message sent is clear: people with a disability, in this case anyone that uses a wheelchair, is not competent. This is a lie, a gross falsehood many accept. It leads to overt prejudice against people with a disability. It takes place in Hollywood, on college campuses, and in the business world. Prejudice accounts for why people with a disability are at such a gross disadvantage economically and socially. The issue is not a given physical deficit but social stigma.
Needles to say no one wakes up and thinks, as Mary Johnson demonstrated in her book Make Them Go Away, that I am going to be biased against a person with a disability. But just because this is not an overt thought in people's mind does not mean rampant prejudice does not exist. The prejudice people with a disability encounter is different from let's say racial bigotry that is clearly understood and frowned upon (all children are taught this in school). It is equally troubling that disability based prejudice is not widely acknowledged. Sure we have the ADA but few people equate it with civil rights legislation. We people with a disability are out of sight and out of mind. And frankly we could use more than a little help from Hollywood because they have a vast influence on millions of people. Just imagine what would happen if somehow disability became cool. Hollywood has the power to make this happen but chooses instead to lock out actors with a disability and more generally a disability rights viewpoint. I for one would like to be perceived as cool once in my life. Ah, dreams die hard even in my household.
Wrexham Lager Beer Co Papers
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
The papers of the Wrexham Lager Beer Company Limited date from its registration in 1881 until its final closure in 2000. It should be noted that as an archive, the papers are far from complete, which is probably due to its complex corporate history.
At first the company found it difficult to establish itself and was soon put into liquidation. In late 1886, under the directorship of Robert Ferdinand Graesser, the company was back trading. Despite his expertise, the production problems and poor sales continued. The company went into voluntary liquidation on 30 September 1892. By July 1900 a consortium headed by the same Robert F. Graesser had acquired the company assets and was back in business producing beer under the 'Ace of Clubs' brand. In 1949 Ind Coope and Allsopp acquired the company. A new brew house was commissioned in 1958 and the national brand of 'Skol' lager was introduced. In 1961 Ind Coope merged with Tetley Walker and Ansells, which in time became Allied Breweries. Following reorganization of Allied Breweries in 1978, the Wrexham Lager Beer Company was reconstituted as an independent subsidiary of Allied Breweries (UK) Ltd. and changed its name to Wrexham Lager Brewery Co. Ltd. in March 1988. In 1992, when Allied Breweries merged with the Danish Carlsberg group, the resulting company became Carlsberg-Tetley. They ran the Wrexham Lager brewery until it closed in 2000.
The majority of these papers relate to business and financial planning, promotional activity and corporate image from the 1970s-1980s. Administrative records include Memoranda and Articles of Association, registration of the company name, the acquisition, and liquidation of the company during the early years. Financial records are limited, but include an account book, 1893-1900, and accounts ledger, 1942-1951. There are a number of files of financial budget and forward planning with analysis of figures, 1980s-1990s. Particularly interesting is the complete series of Brewing books, (1958-1976), and details of specifications of the brewing process and the products, 1953-[1980s]. The Property and Estate papers include mortgages (1922-1954), tenancy agreements and sale of premises, the growth and development of the brewery site and plant, (1970s-1980s). There are also several series of photographs from 1970s-1980s. The archive includes notes and papers compiled 1959-1995, that relate to the history of brewing. The group of Wrexham Lager histories (1980s-1994) was brought together from various sources, (authors and dates often unknown) to produce material for the company�s centenary celebrations in 1982. Much of what was written cannot be substantiated from the original materials found within the collection. There is a large group of public relations material, including newspaper cuttings, photographs, and logos, along with papers relating to the changes in corporate identity. The production of the 'Skol' and later 'XXXX' brands that undoubtedly saved the brewery during the 1970s-1980s, but it is the return to the Wrexham Lager brand name (c.1980), with its aggressive marketing, and new corporate image that is best reflected amongst these papers. There are no papers relating to the demise and closure of the Wrexham brewery in 2000.
At first the company found it difficult to establish itself and was soon put into liquidation. In late 1886, under the directorship of Robert Ferdinand Graesser, the company was back trading. Despite his expertise, the production problems and poor sales continued. The company went into voluntary liquidation on 30 September 1892. By July 1900 a consortium headed by the same Robert F. Graesser had acquired the company assets and was back in business producing beer under the 'Ace of Clubs' brand. In 1949 Ind Coope and Allsopp acquired the company. A new brew house was commissioned in 1958 and the national brand of 'Skol' lager was introduced. In 1961 Ind Coope merged with Tetley Walker and Ansells, which in time became Allied Breweries. Following reorganization of Allied Breweries in 1978, the Wrexham Lager Beer Company was reconstituted as an independent subsidiary of Allied Breweries (UK) Ltd. and changed its name to Wrexham Lager Brewery Co. Ltd. in March 1988. In 1992, when Allied Breweries merged with the Danish Carlsberg group, the resulting company became Carlsberg-Tetley. They ran the Wrexham Lager brewery until it closed in 2000.
The majority of these papers relate to business and financial planning, promotional activity and corporate image from the 1970s-1980s. Administrative records include Memoranda and Articles of Association, registration of the company name, the acquisition, and liquidation of the company during the early years. Financial records are limited, but include an account book, 1893-1900, and accounts ledger, 1942-1951. There are a number of files of financial budget and forward planning with analysis of figures, 1980s-1990s. Particularly interesting is the complete series of Brewing books, (1958-1976), and details of specifications of the brewing process and the products, 1953-[1980s]. The Property and Estate papers include mortgages (1922-1954), tenancy agreements and sale of premises, the growth and development of the brewery site and plant, (1970s-1980s). There are also several series of photographs from 1970s-1980s. The archive includes notes and papers compiled 1959-1995, that relate to the history of brewing. The group of Wrexham Lager histories (1980s-1994) was brought together from various sources, (authors and dates often unknown) to produce material for the company�s centenary celebrations in 1982. Much of what was written cannot be substantiated from the original materials found within the collection. There is a large group of public relations material, including newspaper cuttings, photographs, and logos, along with papers relating to the changes in corporate identity. The production of the 'Skol' and later 'XXXX' brands that undoubtedly saved the brewery during the 1970s-1980s, but it is the return to the Wrexham Lager brand name (c.1980), with its aggressive marketing, and new corporate image that is best reflected amongst these papers. There are no papers relating to the demise and closure of the Wrexham brewery in 2000.
The colliery and trade unionism
Thursday, December 3, 2009
The Emlyn Colliery and Brickworks collection not only reflects the technology and business processes behind anthracite mining, but is also a comprehensive resource for social aspects, and particularly the manpower behind it. The collection has an impressive amount of records relating to employees of the company, including weekly wage cards, employment cards, medical and compensation cards and contract books. Collectively, they are useful in showing the mining companies� wage scales, pension schemes etc. As individuals� records they would be enlightening for the family historian whose ancestor was at anytime employed at Emlyn.
Staff and employment records are not always considered historically important within a business collection. Whilst cataloguing these records in the Emlyn collection, I have been surprised at how much important background information they provide to crucial events in the company�s history. A clear example of this are the weekly wage cards, pay sheets, and price lists, which could be viewed in relation to the 1934 stoppage. The stoppage lasted for two months, and was organised by Arthur Horner, executive committee member (and later president) of the South Wales Miners� Federation (SWMF), and a founding member of the Communist Party. The strike was a battle between the SWMF and company unionism. One of the main grievances of the striking miners� was the companies alleged dishonouring of price lists, and minimum wages.
The collection holds a box of papers containing correspondence, reports, newspaper cuttings etc concerning the 1934 stoppage. There are letters between the colliery owner, G E Aeron Thomas, and the Miners� Federation; anonymously written reports on Arthur Horner, and his influence on the stoppage; employee reports of their experience at meetings; and verbatim accounts of discussions at a meeting held in Aug 1934, following the end of the strike. Although inevitably a lot of the papers are obviously biased against Horner and the stoppage (portraying him as a manipulative dictator, looking to further his own political ends), it is actually a rather inclusive set of records for both sides. In particular, an anonymous report from a meeting where Horner and Evans (a Federation leader) were speaking, although written with an obvious anti-Horner bias, shows the range of feelings amongst the miners. It describes how men between 35 and 60 years were fed up with the strike, worrying about lack of pay, their own homes, and the bad feelings between employer and employees. Conversely, younger men aged between16 to 25 were;
��Horner and Evans mad. Their God undoubtedly, whatever they said was right. The profits that the Thomas�s family had been making on their backs and robbing them of the fruits of their labour.�
These papers provide evidence of both the employees�, and owners�, experiences of trade unionism in the anthracite colliery.
Staff and employment records are not always considered historically important within a business collection. Whilst cataloguing these records in the Emlyn collection, I have been surprised at how much important background information they provide to crucial events in the company�s history. A clear example of this are the weekly wage cards, pay sheets, and price lists, which could be viewed in relation to the 1934 stoppage. The stoppage lasted for two months, and was organised by Arthur Horner, executive committee member (and later president) of the South Wales Miners� Federation (SWMF), and a founding member of the Communist Party. The strike was a battle between the SWMF and company unionism. One of the main grievances of the striking miners� was the companies alleged dishonouring of price lists, and minimum wages.
The collection holds a box of papers containing correspondence, reports, newspaper cuttings etc concerning the 1934 stoppage. There are letters between the colliery owner, G E Aeron Thomas, and the Miners� Federation; anonymously written reports on Arthur Horner, and his influence on the stoppage; employee reports of their experience at meetings; and verbatim accounts of discussions at a meeting held in Aug 1934, following the end of the strike. Although inevitably a lot of the papers are obviously biased against Horner and the stoppage (portraying him as a manipulative dictator, looking to further his own political ends), it is actually a rather inclusive set of records for both sides. In particular, an anonymous report from a meeting where Horner and Evans (a Federation leader) were speaking, although written with an obvious anti-Horner bias, shows the range of feelings amongst the miners. It describes how men between 35 and 60 years were fed up with the strike, worrying about lack of pay, their own homes, and the bad feelings between employer and employees. Conversely, younger men aged between16 to 25 were;
��Horner and Evans mad. Their God undoubtedly, whatever they said was right. The profits that the Thomas�s family had been making on their backs and robbing them of the fruits of their labour.�
These papers provide evidence of both the employees�, and owners�, experiences of trade unionism in the anthracite colliery.
Employment Situation Bleak
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
One person who I can always count on for a sober assessment of the social and economic conditions people with a disability find themselves in is Joseph Shapiro. Author of Nothing About Us Without Us, Shapiro often makes astute points about the economic plight of people with a disability. When I was driving yesterday I heard Shapiro on NPR commenting about an ever present and worsening problem for people with a disability--employment or more accurately rampant unemployment.
In October the national unemployment rate hit 10.2% Economists and the mass media freaked out. The grim unemployment figures made headlines nation wide. The national news led off its programing with stories about what this means to the country and the Obama administration. When I saw these reports I yawned, bored in the extreme. Was I being selfish? I suppose but what I immediately thought of when I heard about the national unemployment rate was the fact that the Office of Disability Employment Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor Surveys estimates that 21 million out of 26 million people with a disability are not even in the work force. 21 million people do not simply give up. The vast majority of these people want to work but after years and even a decade of looking came to the only logical conclusion: people with a disability face an uphill struggle to enter the work force. One could even make the case the struggle to find work is hopeless. Here I am not referring to a job of choice but any job at all. Combine the overwhelming odds against finding employment with the fact many people with a disability rely on government health care in which there is a disincentive to work (they lose health care if they earn too much). The net result is that the vast majority of people with a disability are only marginally attached to the work force in this country. This creates not only economic hardship, a loss of self worth, but further isolates people with a disability socially. Like it or not, we often judge others by what they do for a living and economic resources dictate one's lifestyle.
I wish I had a solution to the unemployment problem people with a disability routinely encounter. If I did I would not be marginally employed as I am now. My marginalization is directly related my disability yet also has much to do with the fact I am in a field, anthropology, that, like many other social sciences, is no longer valued in the form of tenure track positions. Universities have learned from large corporations and scaled back the number of people they hire full time (benefits are a pipe dream). Hence about half of all college professors are part timers like me and I consider myself a highly educated day laborer. But unlike my peers I encounter significant obstacles--social, economic, and architectural. The result is jobs are harder to find and employers do not want to hire people with a disability. Based on my observations and personal experience people with a disability are not represented in the work force. I rarely if ever encounter a person with a disability and I make it a point to ask students I teach if they have ever had a professor that used a wheelchair. Not once in the last 15 years has a student answered yes. This is a real problem and the utter absence of people with a disability in the professorial work force signifies something more significant is taking place. The same can be said for dozens of other professions.
I have repeatedly been told that employers fear making work place accommodations will be costly, require expensive technology, or worry the person with a disability is not capable of doing a given job. These misconceptions are hard to eradicate. Department of Labor figures estimate that 56% of accommodations cost nothing and if any money is involved the cost is less than $600. I for one have never had an institution make any work place accommodation in spite of the fact they were required to do so. For example, when I teach if the table is too low I take an eraser and stick it under the legs of the table. Problem solved. But what happens if I want to use the bathroom? I am often out of luck as I know to not even ask because the answer is always a resounding no. In contrast to many others with a disability, I have been able to scrabble a series of dead end jobs together and, with the support of my family, somehow make ends meet. I do not take my struggles to heart as I know much is going on well beyond my individual qualifications. There is a social, economic and institutional bias that makes entry into the work force exceedingly difficult and impossible for some. This is grossly wrong and I do not know how to force society to change. All I can do is go to work, demonstrate that I am a valuable employee and a competent if not dedicated teacher. In shot, I do my best every day. Most days this seems to be inadequate at best for I know there are millions of people with a disability that would love to have the chances and opportunities that I have had. I am a lucky man and can only hope with time others like me will get a chance to demonstrate their abilities as well.
In October the national unemployment rate hit 10.2% Economists and the mass media freaked out. The grim unemployment figures made headlines nation wide. The national news led off its programing with stories about what this means to the country and the Obama administration. When I saw these reports I yawned, bored in the extreme. Was I being selfish? I suppose but what I immediately thought of when I heard about the national unemployment rate was the fact that the Office of Disability Employment Policy at the U.S. Department of Labor Surveys estimates that 21 million out of 26 million people with a disability are not even in the work force. 21 million people do not simply give up. The vast majority of these people want to work but after years and even a decade of looking came to the only logical conclusion: people with a disability face an uphill struggle to enter the work force. One could even make the case the struggle to find work is hopeless. Here I am not referring to a job of choice but any job at all. Combine the overwhelming odds against finding employment with the fact many people with a disability rely on government health care in which there is a disincentive to work (they lose health care if they earn too much). The net result is that the vast majority of people with a disability are only marginally attached to the work force in this country. This creates not only economic hardship, a loss of self worth, but further isolates people with a disability socially. Like it or not, we often judge others by what they do for a living and economic resources dictate one's lifestyle.
I wish I had a solution to the unemployment problem people with a disability routinely encounter. If I did I would not be marginally employed as I am now. My marginalization is directly related my disability yet also has much to do with the fact I am in a field, anthropology, that, like many other social sciences, is no longer valued in the form of tenure track positions. Universities have learned from large corporations and scaled back the number of people they hire full time (benefits are a pipe dream). Hence about half of all college professors are part timers like me and I consider myself a highly educated day laborer. But unlike my peers I encounter significant obstacles--social, economic, and architectural. The result is jobs are harder to find and employers do not want to hire people with a disability. Based on my observations and personal experience people with a disability are not represented in the work force. I rarely if ever encounter a person with a disability and I make it a point to ask students I teach if they have ever had a professor that used a wheelchair. Not once in the last 15 years has a student answered yes. This is a real problem and the utter absence of people with a disability in the professorial work force signifies something more significant is taking place. The same can be said for dozens of other professions.
I have repeatedly been told that employers fear making work place accommodations will be costly, require expensive technology, or worry the person with a disability is not capable of doing a given job. These misconceptions are hard to eradicate. Department of Labor figures estimate that 56% of accommodations cost nothing and if any money is involved the cost is less than $600. I for one have never had an institution make any work place accommodation in spite of the fact they were required to do so. For example, when I teach if the table is too low I take an eraser and stick it under the legs of the table. Problem solved. But what happens if I want to use the bathroom? I am often out of luck as I know to not even ask because the answer is always a resounding no. In contrast to many others with a disability, I have been able to scrabble a series of dead end jobs together and, with the support of my family, somehow make ends meet. I do not take my struggles to heart as I know much is going on well beyond my individual qualifications. There is a social, economic and institutional bias that makes entry into the work force exceedingly difficult and impossible for some. This is grossly wrong and I do not know how to force society to change. All I can do is go to work, demonstrate that I am a valuable employee and a competent if not dedicated teacher. In shot, I do my best every day. Most days this seems to be inadequate at best for I know there are millions of people with a disability that would love to have the chances and opportunities that I have had. I am a lucky man and can only hope with time others like me will get a chance to demonstrate their abilities as well.
Ian Pearl: The Dog that Bit Back
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Last month I read about Ian Pearl and hoped that his story would get wide spread coverage and become part of the debate about health care reform. Sadly, I suspect few people recall who and why Ian Pearl was in the news. And yes Pearl was in news in the form of stories in the Washington Post, Miami Herald, Huffington Post, and CNN. Let me refresh your memory. Ian Pearl is a 37 year old man who was one of the first students with a disability mainstreamed in Broward County, Florida. Pearl has Muscular Dystrophy and has used a ventilator for the last 18 years. Usually when one uses a ventilator the person in question ends up in an institution. In Pearl's case he was lucky in that his father purchased an insurance policy in 1981 with Guardian Life, a multi billion dollar New York based insurance company. The policy had no lifetime benefit cap and covered home nursing care. In October Guardian Life withdrew Pearl's policy from all policy holders in New York where his father's business is based. The "replacement" plan had limited benefits and home nursing was not covered. For Pearl, this change was a death sentence (as a last resort he would have been admitted to a state hospital under Medicaid). Pearl filed a lawsuit and asked the Department of Health and Human Services to force Guardian Life to continue his insurance. All this is pretty humdrum, typical big business. Who cares if one man will die or be forced into a nursing facility where his life expectancy is nil? This all changed when Pearl's lawsuit uncovered inflammatory documents that established Guardian Life had created a "hit list" of its costliest members they wanted to "get rid of". Who did Guardian Life target? People with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and paralysis. Guardian executives referred to people like Pearl and my paralyzed ass as "dogs" and "trainwrecks". They openly debated how to get rid of people with expensive and chronic conditions. It is against the law to cancel individual members with health problems so Guardian Life decided to cancel plans for all members of the specific plan Pearl had. A federal court ruled the Guardian Life actions were legal, barring an order by the Department of Health and Human Services, and that as of December 1 Pearl would lose his policy.
Ian Pearl's story has a happy ending. Guardian Life reversed its decision once it got bad publicity and restored Pearl's policy. Surely characterizing Pearl as a "dog" and "trainwreck" did not help Guardian Life's image and prompted the CEO, Dennis Manning, to apologize for the memo. Guardian Life's contention that policies such as Pearl's that offered unlimited home nursing was too expensive for small business customers to buy failed to resonate. Legislators have also stepped into the picture in New York and are trying to pass what they call Ian's Law that will prevent insurance companies from discontinuing policies deemed too expensive. I am obviously relieved for Pearl but know his ability to fight back was not the norm. Thus I cannot help but wonder how many others "dogs" with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and paralysis have had their policies discontinued? How many people have died as a result of Guardian Life's effort? More generally, are chronic conditions i.e. expensive medical care the reason why people spend so much on health care policies? Guardian Life is an old company whose tag line is "Solutions for Life". Well, it appears Guardian Life's solution is get rid of people like Pearl and me whose life is not valued or at least deemed too costly.
Guardian Life is not the entire problem but rather a symbol of a much larger issue. First, there are no ethics in business. We live in an era of global capitalism where the bottom line, money, is more important than any other variable. No amount of individual wealth is enough. This is a new era for Americans my age that came of age when paternalistic capitalism was the norm. I vividly recall my father telling me his company and others like it had the moral responsibility to take care of its workers. Can you imagine any CEO stating that today? I am not naive. My father and other wealthy capitalists wanted to make a profit but knew the difference between right and wrong. Targeting "dogs", people that truly need health insurance, is simply wrong--especially for a company that reported $7.5 billion dollars in revenue and a net income of $437 million dollars. What I want to know is why did no one at Guardian Life state the obvious--people like Pearl need their policy to survive and as such the policy must be honored even if they lose money. Second, health care costs in the last decade have sky rocketed. Every person that has been ill or can read a newspaper knows this. At the same time, companies like Guardian Life have drastically scaled back the benefits in the types of plans it carries. In home nursing care is deemed too costly and by contemporary standards Pearl's policy is generous. The overwhelming bias against home care reveals what ADAPT has been fighting for years--the nursing home bias. It is far more humane and economical to provide care for a person like Pearl in his own home. Think about it this way: would you like to live in a hospital or nursing facility at age 37? I think not. Third, I have noticed in the last few years that popular culture and the mass media have decided that life on a ventilator is no life at all. TV shows such as ER and movies such as Million Dollar Baby receive accolades while depicting life on a ventilator or with a disability such as paralysis as a fate worse than death. This is infuriating to me for it contradicts everything that I know and believe. We humans are highly adaptable, have great individual variation and these are traits that should be valued. Instead, there is an effort under way to kill Pearl and by extension people like me or at least manipulate our bodies in ways that are questionable at best (think the Ashley Treatment).
I am not being extremist--if you doubt me read the work of Peter Singer who would prefer people like Pearl did not exist as he would encourage parents to kill infants with disabilities. A belief that has filtered into neonatal units as the journal Pediatrics recently reported nurses considered death preferable to a life with a disability. How and when did people with a disability become expensive unwanted commodities is a question I do not have the answer to. A variable surely is simple numbers, there are more people with a disability living a rich and full life. But that life takes money and support in the form of adequate health care. More importantly though life with a disability must be valued. People at Guardian Life cannot consider Pearl and me to be dogs. We are human beings and our humanity must be recognized. But this effort does not begin or end with Guardian Life. My neighbors must consider me, a man that uses a wheelchair, a part of the community and demand public buildings be accessible. Schools must see past a given disability and acknowledge and value the potential of all students. Colleges must do the same and make an effort to include disability studies into the larger curriculum. Corporations must hire people with a disability. Citizens must elect candidates with a disability. In order for me to not feel a class apart from the rest of society people like me must be included at every social strata. Until that happens corporations like Guardian Life will continue to do everything in its power to get rid of dogs like Pearl and me. Thankfully some dogs like Pearl bite back and this bad cripple will continue to wield a mean pen and assert his civil rights.
Ian Pearl's story has a happy ending. Guardian Life reversed its decision once it got bad publicity and restored Pearl's policy. Surely characterizing Pearl as a "dog" and "trainwreck" did not help Guardian Life's image and prompted the CEO, Dennis Manning, to apologize for the memo. Guardian Life's contention that policies such as Pearl's that offered unlimited home nursing was too expensive for small business customers to buy failed to resonate. Legislators have also stepped into the picture in New York and are trying to pass what they call Ian's Law that will prevent insurance companies from discontinuing policies deemed too expensive. I am obviously relieved for Pearl but know his ability to fight back was not the norm. Thus I cannot help but wonder how many others "dogs" with muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, brain injury, and paralysis have had their policies discontinued? How many people have died as a result of Guardian Life's effort? More generally, are chronic conditions i.e. expensive medical care the reason why people spend so much on health care policies? Guardian Life is an old company whose tag line is "Solutions for Life". Well, it appears Guardian Life's solution is get rid of people like Pearl and me whose life is not valued or at least deemed too costly.
Guardian Life is not the entire problem but rather a symbol of a much larger issue. First, there are no ethics in business. We live in an era of global capitalism where the bottom line, money, is more important than any other variable. No amount of individual wealth is enough. This is a new era for Americans my age that came of age when paternalistic capitalism was the norm. I vividly recall my father telling me his company and others like it had the moral responsibility to take care of its workers. Can you imagine any CEO stating that today? I am not naive. My father and other wealthy capitalists wanted to make a profit but knew the difference between right and wrong. Targeting "dogs", people that truly need health insurance, is simply wrong--especially for a company that reported $7.5 billion dollars in revenue and a net income of $437 million dollars. What I want to know is why did no one at Guardian Life state the obvious--people like Pearl need their policy to survive and as such the policy must be honored even if they lose money. Second, health care costs in the last decade have sky rocketed. Every person that has been ill or can read a newspaper knows this. At the same time, companies like Guardian Life have drastically scaled back the benefits in the types of plans it carries. In home nursing care is deemed too costly and by contemporary standards Pearl's policy is generous. The overwhelming bias against home care reveals what ADAPT has been fighting for years--the nursing home bias. It is far more humane and economical to provide care for a person like Pearl in his own home. Think about it this way: would you like to live in a hospital or nursing facility at age 37? I think not. Third, I have noticed in the last few years that popular culture and the mass media have decided that life on a ventilator is no life at all. TV shows such as ER and movies such as Million Dollar Baby receive accolades while depicting life on a ventilator or with a disability such as paralysis as a fate worse than death. This is infuriating to me for it contradicts everything that I know and believe. We humans are highly adaptable, have great individual variation and these are traits that should be valued. Instead, there is an effort under way to kill Pearl and by extension people like me or at least manipulate our bodies in ways that are questionable at best (think the Ashley Treatment).
I am not being extremist--if you doubt me read the work of Peter Singer who would prefer people like Pearl did not exist as he would encourage parents to kill infants with disabilities. A belief that has filtered into neonatal units as the journal Pediatrics recently reported nurses considered death preferable to a life with a disability. How and when did people with a disability become expensive unwanted commodities is a question I do not have the answer to. A variable surely is simple numbers, there are more people with a disability living a rich and full life. But that life takes money and support in the form of adequate health care. More importantly though life with a disability must be valued. People at Guardian Life cannot consider Pearl and me to be dogs. We are human beings and our humanity must be recognized. But this effort does not begin or end with Guardian Life. My neighbors must consider me, a man that uses a wheelchair, a part of the community and demand public buildings be accessible. Schools must see past a given disability and acknowledge and value the potential of all students. Colleges must do the same and make an effort to include disability studies into the larger curriculum. Corporations must hire people with a disability. Citizens must elect candidates with a disability. In order for me to not feel a class apart from the rest of society people like me must be included at every social strata. Until that happens corporations like Guardian Life will continue to do everything in its power to get rid of dogs like Pearl and me. Thankfully some dogs like Pearl bite back and this bad cripple will continue to wield a mean pen and assert his civil rights.
Wales�powering the world�really?!
Thursday, November 19, 2009
When I mention the title of this project to people, I am sometimes met with a look of scepticism, a look that asks �Wales�powering the world�really?!�. So, in my first blog entry of the project, I am going to take the opportunity to both explain and justify the ostensibly grand title.
From the 18th century, through to the mid 20th century, Wales was a major industrial centre, with the export of its rich mineral deposits indeed �powering the world� (or at least assisting with its industrial and domestic need for coal, iron, slate, steel and tin plate). The collections chosen for the project reflect Wales� advances and achievements, not only on a local and national level, but as part of the global industrial revolution. 3 months, and 1 and a half collections, into the project, I have come across several records which reveal this.
I recently completed cataloguing the first collection, Vivian and Sons Limited, Copper Smelters of Swansea. Swansea was nicknamed �Copperopolis� due to the huge amount of copper production and smelting, and by the mid 19th century, Vivian & Sons were the largest exporters of finished copper in the UK. The technical drawings, reports and patents demonstrate the scientific developments made by the business. Vivian and Sons were also members of the Copper Trade Association which was formed in 1824 to control of the price of manufactured copper internationally.
I am currently working on a collection from Carmarthenshire Archive Service, Emlyn Anthracite Colliery and Brickworks. South Wales was the major source of anthracite coal in Great Britain (anthracite is a hard coal, which burns slowly with a smokeless flame). An article in �The Industrial World� describes how the company was pioneering in their use of scientific methods. They had their own specialised research department, and product guarantees for quality, purity and ash content. Plans and reports in the collection show the lengthy considerations taken into account when designing and installing a modern type of screening and washing plant. The anthracite was exported to Europe, North Africa, Canada, the United States and South America. A photograph in the collection shows an anthracite exhibition at the Salon Des Arts Menagers, Paris in 1938.
It could be said that the heavy industries of Wales, and South Wales in particular, did, quite literally, �power� the world with its exports fuelling steamships, railways, etc and providing metal for war and industry. Wales also �powered� the world through leading by example, with technological and scientific advances in processes such as smelting and mining. The title of the project, I feel, is not over the top, but reflects the chosen collections� value as a resource for researching Wales� great industrial past.
From the 18th century, through to the mid 20th century, Wales was a major industrial centre, with the export of its rich mineral deposits indeed �powering the world� (or at least assisting with its industrial and domestic need for coal, iron, slate, steel and tin plate). The collections chosen for the project reflect Wales� advances and achievements, not only on a local and national level, but as part of the global industrial revolution. 3 months, and 1 and a half collections, into the project, I have come across several records which reveal this.
I recently completed cataloguing the first collection, Vivian and Sons Limited, Copper Smelters of Swansea. Swansea was nicknamed �Copperopolis� due to the huge amount of copper production and smelting, and by the mid 19th century, Vivian & Sons were the largest exporters of finished copper in the UK. The technical drawings, reports and patents demonstrate the scientific developments made by the business. Vivian and Sons were also members of the Copper Trade Association which was formed in 1824 to control of the price of manufactured copper internationally.
I am currently working on a collection from Carmarthenshire Archive Service, Emlyn Anthracite Colliery and Brickworks. South Wales was the major source of anthracite coal in Great Britain (anthracite is a hard coal, which burns slowly with a smokeless flame). An article in �The Industrial World� describes how the company was pioneering in their use of scientific methods. They had their own specialised research department, and product guarantees for quality, purity and ash content. Plans and reports in the collection show the lengthy considerations taken into account when designing and installing a modern type of screening and washing plant. The anthracite was exported to Europe, North Africa, Canada, the United States and South America. A photograph in the collection shows an anthracite exhibition at the Salon Des Arts Menagers, Paris in 1938.
It could be said that the heavy industries of Wales, and South Wales in particular, did, quite literally, �power� the world with its exports fuelling steamships, railways, etc and providing metal for war and industry. Wales also �powered� the world through leading by example, with technological and scientific advances in processes such as smelting and mining. The title of the project, I feel, is not over the top, but reflects the chosen collections� value as a resource for researching Wales� great industrial past.
Toilet Mall
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Yeah, you heard it right. An entrepreneur from kenya has come up with a novel concept of providing basic sanitation to its citizens. Not only is the mall fulfilling a need for consumers to have clean and comfortable access to sanitation facilities but it also provides for a convenience store and ancillary services such as shoe polish.
Amazon into private label mood
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Of all the retailers present be it offline or online, Amazon seems to be the most inventive and engaging with its customers. Their sense of "recession" means to go for newer opportunities. After having come up with kindle, they are now keen to sell private labels online under the "Pinzon" name. Amazon.com has a page dedicated to a line of products for the home including furniture, bedding, sheets, kitchen gadgets and more, proclaiming, "Pinzon Style is Your Lifestyle."
More about it here.
More about it here.
Going green can be profitable for corporations while serving its corporate social responsibilities
Friday, June 5, 2009
For a whole new generation being �green� is much more than being part of the hippy culture and for corporations it is a matter of running businesses consciously. Our planet is getting fragile by the day due to less availability of portable water, increased landfill by non-recyclable garbage and global warming due to increase in green house gases.
According to a research by Industrial ecologist Sangwon Suh of the University of Minnesota, service sector--such as banking, hospitals, computers and retail stores, amongst other businesses account for more than one third of industrial greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and this might be the case around the world. With such a big stake, it is time for the retail sector to adopt green practices. Currently retail companies have not focused much on such initiatives as it involves upfront investments in new recycling units, researching for bio-degradable packaging materials, overhauling existing structural materials for a more efficient building materials and introducing energy saving lighting systems and cooling systems.
But the benefits that accrue by going green will far outweigh the costs in the long run. For one, a new generation of people that consists of Generation Y and Generation Z are more conscious of the environment and are prone to buy eco-friendly products. According to a survey by AMP Insights[1], 69% of Gen Y will consider a company's social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible.
According to a research by Industrial ecologist Sangwon Suh of the University of Minnesota, service sector--such as banking, hospitals, computers and retail stores, amongst other businesses account for more than one third of industrial greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. and this might be the case around the world. With such a big stake, it is time for the retail sector to adopt green practices. Currently retail companies have not focused much on such initiatives as it involves upfront investments in new recycling units, researching for bio-degradable packaging materials, overhauling existing structural materials for a more efficient building materials and introducing energy saving lighting systems and cooling systems.
But the benefits that accrue by going green will far outweigh the costs in the long run. For one, a new generation of people that consists of Generation Y and Generation Z are more conscious of the environment and are prone to buy eco-friendly products. According to a survey by AMP Insights[1], 69% of Gen Y will consider a company's social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible.
In fact they will be willing to pay a little extra as well. Research by Maritz designed to track Gen Y�s brand awareness among several popular clothing retailers predicts that 47% percent of the respondents are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly services, products or brands. Out of this percentage, the vast majority (77 percent) cited their �care about the environment� as the reason behind their willingness to pay more, with other qualifiers, such as �it�s the right thing to do� (21 percent) or �so that people know I�m environmentally aware� (2 percent) trailing behind. No wonder Wal-Mart consumer�s adoption for green products increased by 66% in 2008 compared to 2007[2].
Apart from tapping into a new segment of consumers, some retailers have improved their bottom-line (profits) by employing eco-friendly practices as well. IKEA Canada has reduced its energy consumption in its stores by 25 percent by implementing new energy management practices and technologies while Wal-Mart stores cut its energy use by 30% by incorporating energy-management systems[3]. Aldi the fastest growing discount retailer is opening up environmentally friendly stores with the aim of a 30% reduction in its utility footprint[4].
Not to be left alone, major consumer product companies like Estee Lauder, Whole Foods, ConAgra, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever have also teamed up with packaging providers to develop sustainable packaging that uses recycled and renewable content, to reduce raw materials in weight and volume, and promote the use of biodegradable materials[5]. The reduced size and use of lesser quantity of materials will help manufactures reduce the cost of products sold. According to Carbon Trust, an independent company set up by UK government, a 20% cut in energy costs represents the same bottom line benefit as a 5% increase in sales. No wonder, Wal-Mart has asked its suppliers to cut packaging by 5% by 2013. This they say will take the equivalent of 213,000 trucks off the road saving 66.7 million gallons of diesel[6] besides improving their profitability.
With such monetary benefits, it is the right time for retailers to take the green initiatives. Some of the areas where retailers can focus are
1) Implementing energy management systems that offers control and monitoring of building services performances and allows for settings to be changed quickly and easily.
2) Going for LED lighting
3) Using advanced refrigeration systems that require less conventional refrigerant and experience lower rates of emission.
4) Increasing overall recycling of solid waste from stores apart from reducing reliance on plastic and paper grocery bags and finally
5) Use of building materials that reduce leakage of heated or cooled air from the store.
For retailers, social responsibility and green initiatives can go hand-in-hand resulting in more loyal customers while managing costs. It is important that as responsible citizens retailers take a pledge to go green and what a better day to do so than today being the World Environment Day.
Sources:
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-23-gen-next-cover_x.htm
[2] http://www.bluemapinc.com/resources/WalmartGreen.pdf
[3] www.environmentalleader.com/2008/08/27/wal-mart-canada-stores-to-cut-energy-use-30
[4] www.gourmetretailer.com/gourmetretailer/content_display/news/e3i71ba0ba389e5e5bea8e3f4fef9fd25bb
[5] http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/05/29/con-agra-pg-among-honorees-for-sustainable-packaging/
[6] http://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/8628.aspx
Discount stores
Monday, May 25, 2009
The discount store fancy has now caught up in India with Reliance Retail planning to open its no-frills stores. And there can never be a better time than the present recessionary period to open such formats. Around the world, the fastest growing retailers are the ones who sell products at discounted prices. For the first time, global discounters like Lidl and Aldi have a place amongst the top 10 retailers according to a recent report published by Deloitte. Discount stores as a concept were invented by Theo and Karl Albrecht who founded Aldi Discount in 1960. Their low-cost business model is a huge success even now in Germany and abroad.
These formats are not only catching the fancy of the urban middle class families across the world who have seen their disposable income falling but it is also attracting savvy rich people who have no qualms doing value shopping for their daily needs. These stores sell goods on an average 20-30% less than a regular superstore, proving to be a big hit with consumers. No wonder, internationally major retailers like Tesco and Carrefour in a bid to capture market share are coming up with their own versions of discount format stores or are introducing value products in their assortment to attract customers who have been hurt by recession.
India has not been new to the concept; down south Subhiksha was the first modern retailer to have a discount model. It offered all products at a 10% discount and up-north D-Mart introduced a blanket 5% off discount on all products. Although D-Mart looks to be profitable the same is not the case with Subhiksha. The company owes its financial mess due to bad capital management and opening up of large number of stores without proper focus on supply chain management. Some of the initiatives that Indian retailers can implement to be profitable viz a viz its western counterparts are a) limiting the number of SKU�s to 1000 -2000 per store. This will ensure that these items are sourced cost efficiently and the high turnover of these most selling SKU�s will ensure that capital is used effectively and b) Notching up properties at reasonable prices. With the recent downturn, a lot of properties will come up for distress sale and it is a good time to rent these properties or renegotiate on old agreements.
Irrespective of how the economy behaves in the near future, one thing is clear that the discount format is here to stay.
Price Indexes
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Price indexes are a normalized average of prices for a given class of goods or services in a given region, during a given interval of time. It is a statistic designed to help to compare how these prices, taken as a whole, differ between time periods or geographical locations.
Price indices have several potential uses. For particularly broad indices, the index can be said to measure the economy's price level or a cost of living. More narrow price indices can help producers with business plans and pricing. Sometimes, they can be useful in helping to guide investment. (Source: Wikipedia)
Some of the major price indexes are listed below:
Wholesale Price Index (WPI): The index is used to measure the change in the average price level of goods traded in wholesale market. A total of 435 commodity prices make up the index. It is available on a weekly basis, with the shortest possible measurement lag being two weeks. Because of this, it is widely used in business and industry circles and in Government, and is generally taken as an indicator of the inflation rate in the economy.
Producer Price Index (PPI): It measures average changes in prices received by domestic producers for their output. It is one of several price indices calculated by national statistical agencies.
Consumer Price Index (CPI): It is a measure of the average price of consumer goods and services purchased by households. A consumer price index measures a price change for a constant market basket of goods and services from one period to the next within the same area (city, region, or nation). The percent change in the CPI is a measure of inflation. The CPI can be used to index (i.e., adjust for the effects of inflation) wages, salaries, pensions, and regulated or contracted prices. They are weighted this way: Housing: 41.4%, Food and Beverage: 17.4%, Transport: 17.0%, Medical Care: 6.9%, Others: 6.9%, Apparel: 6.0%, Entertainment: 4.4%. Taxes (43%) are not included in CPI computation.
By August 2010, the Indian government will have a new Consumer Price Index, in order to address a situation of increasing prices to rise even as the inflation rate is tending towards zero, the government has initiated action to introduce a new consumer price index (CPI) by August next year. The new index would be available with four sub-sections to reflect prices at national, rural, urban and state levels on monthly basis. The data collection for rural as well as urban India would start by July, and the new CPI would be out exactly one year after that in August, 2010. This would be done by engaging 2,400 postmen for collection of retail price from 1,200 villages in the country by June end. The postmen would be identified in May and trained them in June. Preparation for the new CPI for urban India has been completed in March. The CSO is ready for collecting data from retail outlets in 100 cities and town.
Price indices have several potential uses. For particularly broad indices, the index can be said to measure the economy's price level or a cost of living. More narrow price indices can help producers with business plans and pricing. Sometimes, they can be useful in helping to guide investment. (Source: Wikipedia)
Some of the major price indexes are listed below:
Wholesale Price Index (WPI): The index is used to measure the change in the average price level of goods traded in wholesale market. A total of 435 commodity prices make up the index. It is available on a weekly basis, with the shortest possible measurement lag being two weeks. Because of this, it is widely used in business and industry circles and in Government, and is generally taken as an indicator of the inflation rate in the economy.
Producer Price Index (PPI): It measures average changes in prices received by domestic producers for their output. It is one of several price indices calculated by national statistical agencies.
Consumer Price Index (CPI): It is a measure of the average price of consumer goods and services purchased by households. A consumer price index measures a price change for a constant market basket of goods and services from one period to the next within the same area (city, region, or nation). The percent change in the CPI is a measure of inflation. The CPI can be used to index (i.e., adjust for the effects of inflation) wages, salaries, pensions, and regulated or contracted prices. They are weighted this way: Housing: 41.4%, Food and Beverage: 17.4%, Transport: 17.0%, Medical Care: 6.9%, Others: 6.9%, Apparel: 6.0%, Entertainment: 4.4%. Taxes (43%) are not included in CPI computation.
By August 2010, the Indian government will have a new Consumer Price Index, in order to address a situation of increasing prices to rise even as the inflation rate is tending towards zero, the government has initiated action to introduce a new consumer price index (CPI) by August next year. The new index would be available with four sub-sections to reflect prices at national, rural, urban and state levels on monthly basis. The data collection for rural as well as urban India would start by July, and the new CPI would be out exactly one year after that in August, 2010. This would be done by engaging 2,400 postmen for collection of retail price from 1,200 villages in the country by June end. The postmen would be identified in May and trained them in June. Preparation for the new CPI for urban India has been completed in March. The CSO is ready for collecting data from retail outlets in 100 cities and town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)